In a nice, dialogish blog called "Philosophical conversations" (though too frankfurtian for my personal philosophical stance, it presents many differing viewpoints), Gary Sauer-Thompson refers to JM Bernstein with the following statement: "that the effect of nihilism has been the increasing
rational incoherence of modern moral values and ideals,and their
consequent increasing practical inadequacey for the purpsoes of
orientating and giving meaning to everyday life. That helps to nake
sense of the conservative return to the Judaic/Christian tradition as the ethical foundation of western civilization."
I am not so sure that this claim does justice to the way that people think about their everyday life. I am not so sure either about the return of the Judaic/Christian tradition as the ethical foundation. I do realise thar a certain BW Bush has been elected partially on these grounds. I do also realise, by the conversations and conferences that I overhear with professional philosophers and intellectuals, that many of them do turn towards a judaic or christian foundation for answers to questions that have great importance for them, and for me (though I do not turn the same way for solutions).
But for one thing, I would not classify their questions as belonging to everyday life - at least not the ones of the great majority of people. And second, when we do turn to the preoccupations of the average, middle-class western citizen, it is not my impression that they do adhere to a conesequent or even choerent body of beliefs. On the contrary. What they tend to relie upon is more like a multi-appropriating complex built on common sense, everyday tactics, opportunism, potlash leaning towards corruption, hopes of romantic love and a sense of basic community of friends, the hope of being able to cope with the choices that they make, either for their own self-esteem, or for the recognition of their peers (and they do not often look far beyond the ones that they consider their peers to see what recognition there would be there).Could we decipher this pick-and-mix ethics, this social and existential navigation, deconstruct it and end up with something like a judaic-christian ethics? Frankly, I think we would have to do a lot of deconstruction and reconstruction, in the way in which we excel - but would we be presenting a plausible explanation for the atrocities that are being performed in the name of defending this cacphonic pseudo-philosophy of life in the (post)modern world?
I don't think so. The problem is not of the re-introduction of traditions - and I believe the years to come will show taht what is being chosen these years is not so much a return to religious narratives, as it is an attempt to buy more time, to postpone the coming of any form of judgment uopn our own acts. An attempt to be granted a life in brackets, in a state of exception, which incidentally is what Agamben calls it, but aiming at the other side: When Agamben speaks of a state of exception, he speaks of the effect of the politics of "our leaders" (sorry, but I definitely do not accept their legitimacy as leaders) on the rest of the world. But the state of exception falls both ways: it counts for our own generations, the one of our parents and our own, refusing to take the fundamental discussions about what the values and aims of future-oriented, collaborative, sustainable, etc. societies would be like, replacing them by discussions and endless talkshows about the impact of the colour of a tie, the senerity of a royal wedding or the latest fashion in outdoor-kitchens.
I agree with Bernstein's claim that the project of modernity has failed ethically and politically. This has a lot to do with the importance given to economics and property, I think. But here, my point is merely that the acceptance of leaders that say God and Freedom and Democracy in the same sentence, does not rely on a return to certain religious values. It relies, I think upon the implosion of the boundaries between what Luhmann called the differentiated subsystems of modern society: whatever held the ethics of every subsystem apart was always bound to crumble and release an implosion of value sets, since the susbystems are not closed, never have been, and gradually, they intervene so much through the displacement and migration of people, of units, of language codes, of workers, etc., that their differentiated ethics can no longer be kept apart.
And everyday life is the place where this implosion is carried the furthest: as there is no logic or ethics of everyday life as such, it will be the easy claim of any other ethics trying to make its way ahead. But there is no general jurisdiction and no general law, except common sense and the power of communities like the workplace, the family, and other associations, that one belongs to. Still, these do not tell people how to make sense of the totality of chaotide ethical mixtures. So, eventually, they implode and crumble, falling the easy prey to anyone who may claim to hold the keys to certainty. Eventually, this will prove itself to be just another subsystem trying to annect the others - or even better, just be another example of what everyday common sense would call greed..
..so if I don't stop now, I will end up in a dysphoric phantasy of a world based on total opportunism and total lack in the collective creation of new opportunities for others than the nearest community. So, I will crawl back into my sinusitis and hope for a better world. I am supposed to be writing an article on freedom and creative communities, so where did this dysphroic ramble come from? Disease, disease. Hand me the antibiotics, I am disphorising.
What is the call of the artist, or of the
philosopher, in relation to the human world that surrounds her/him - what are
the obligations which s/he must follow, and by what norms and ethics should the
surrounding community judge the actions undertaken? This seems to me to be a
question rather relevant to this discussion, as it seems to me to be more a
question of what we seek for, what we will work for, strive for, and recommend
and teach, not what is more or less etymologically true or historically correct.
Let me turn to philosophical reflection for an instant. Philosophy is not a source of truth more than language, but it happens to be my home, this is where I find my "communitas", my sense of belonging. (Though the nature of this community is more in line with what the Danish philosopher Ole Fogh Kirkeby brings up as the core of community: a constantly re-opening void, Plato's concept of "Khora", the womb of the world, which is nowhere and no-when, but yet gives life to everything that is.)
What is interesting here is that my sense of belonging within a philosophical/artistic community does not limit itself to safety - in fact, it resembles more what Paolo Virno calls the community of those who do not feel at home. The term used for this is "multitude", rather than community. And Giorgio Agamben speaks of a "coming community", where singularities may communicate with each other:
"Taking-place, the communication of singularities in the attribute of extension, does not unite them in essence, but scatters them in existence." (The coming community, p.18)
Virno's multitude and Agamben's coming community are examples of forms of what I would call the dynamics of becoming-community, becoming-multitude, and becoming-multitude, which are much more suitable for the times in which we live, rather than the essentialism packed inside a definition of community as the common safe haven, be this defined, however, by an act of giving.
Now, to return to my question: I live my life questioning, using this questioning as a source for new understanding, dialogue, and further questioning. I do not know when my questioning leads me somewhere which it useful and good for the world around me. But I know that it does - and I know that I do have feeling of belonging, a "communitas", though I would probably define it as pretty much the contrary of total safety and the act of pure giving. Yes, the act of giving is important, I agree - but sometimes this act of giving involves a deregulation, a destabilisation, which must be well known by all of those of you who are artists or/and philosophers: the act of being brought into destabilisation by someone can be the most beautiful act. This often leads to crisis, which again may bring us to the lucky state of seeing differences appear, where there was only indifference before our crisis.
This is one of the most important acts of the artist or the philosopher: daring to move into uncertain and unsafe waters, and being able and willing to share this moving and this de-becoming with people around. Is this not an act of community, is this not communication? I would say so.
I live in a country where material wealth is higher than ever before, controlling and scorecard mentality is being installed in ubiquity, and strangers are rejected massively and expelled like never before, where multitude is an officially recognised threat being inserted into the policy of primary schools - all in the name of community, of wealth, of safety, and of a common future. And, as always, when community is not seen as something which should always open up itself, always be willing to give itself away, the main aim of community becomes the exclusion, annihilation or combating of those who are defined as outside. This is what I must constantly be ready to question, for the sake of community always falling apart while becoming.
Recent Comments